IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and conclusive chain of evidence, and that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by reliable evidence to be admissible for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused-appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.”

2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1989 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1991.

3. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.1991 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions, Raisinghnagar, in Sessions Case 48/89 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhimsen), whereby the present accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below :

4. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 02.02.1989 at around 5:00 p.m., one Ramkaran (complainant) submitted an information before Police Station, Gharsana, stating that marriage of his daughter (Meera) was solemnized with Bheemsen (accused-appellant) about two and a half years ago. It was further stated that about 8-9 days ago (prior to the date of information), the complainant’s daughter and her husband (accused-appellant) started living on the complainant’s land i.e. Chak No.2 K.M., and that, the complainant had also provided them with a constructed house on the said land. The complainant’s son Onkar (PW.7) with his family was also residing near the place of residence of the complainant’s daughter.

4.1. The complainant also stated that on 02.02.1989 at around 9:00 a.m., his son and son-in-law (accused-appellant), came to the place of the complainant at Chak No.9 G.D., and informed the complainant that his daughter-Meera had left the previous night at around 10:00-11:00 p.m. from Dhani, and further asked the complainant whether Meera had visited him, whereupon the complainant answered in the negative. Thereupon, the complainant sent his wife-Badhu, one Budhram alongwith his (complainant’s) son Onkar and the son-in-law (accused-appellant) to Chak No.2 K.M., in search of his daughter and also told the said persons to make enquiry about Meera in the neighbourhood.

4.2. Thereafter, while the complainant himself and his another son (Mahipal) got ready to leave the place to ascertain the whereabouts of Meera, the complainant’s son-in-law (Chaanan) and Budhram arrived, and informed the complainant that a dead body had been found floating in Diggi; thereupon, the complainant immediately rushed towards the police station and stated that he was not aware as to how his daughter Meera died by falling into the Diggi, and on report, the same was taken by the police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-3).

5. On the next day, the complainant a written report (Ex.P-1), whereupon, the police registered an FIR bearing FIR No.4/89 and the investigation accordingly commenced thereafter. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the competent court.

6. The learned Trial Court framed the charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC; the said charge were read over to the accused-appellant; the accused-appellant denied the same, and sought due trial, and the trial accordingly commenced thereafter before the learned Trial Court.

7. During the course of trial, the evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 15 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, whereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence and his false implication in the criminal case in question.

8. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as above, vide the impug